Hon'ble Virendra Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents No.2/3 not to issue any oral direction to respondents No.5/6 for restraining petitioner No.2 from operating the brick kiln situate at Plot No.423.
Petitioner No.2, who has been granted a lease on the said plot, is running a brick kiln. The petitioner No.2 has already filed a suit being Suit No.605 of 2008 in which a permanent injunction has been prayed for against two defendants, namely, Rajendra Pratap and Daddan. Daddan is claimed to be co-tenure holder of the plot in question. In the said suit an application for interim injunction has also been filed, which is pending consideration.
The submission, which has been pressed by the petitioners, is that although no written order has been passed by the district authorities but oral direction has been issued for not permitting the petitioners to run the brick kiln.
Be that as it may, the petitioners having already approached the trial Court, it is open for the petitioners to pursue the same Court and seek such relief in the pending suit. The suit having already engaging attention of the civil Court, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition. We, however, observed that it shall be open for the petitioner to press the application for interim injunction, which may be expeditiously disposed of.
With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.2.2010 Rakesh